The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means took the Chair as Deputy Speaker, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 163 (Motions to sit in private):—
	The House divided: Ayes 0, Noes 80.

Tom Clarke: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
	Last year was rightly dominated by the Make Poverty History campaign, which provided a welcome focus on issues such as aid, debt and trade. That focus simply must continue. Laudable progress was made at the G8 summit in Gleneagles, where commitments were made to double aid by 2010 and to cancel debt for up to 38 heavily indebted poor countries. A quarter of a million people marched in Edinburgh, demonstrating an unmistakable public commitment to making poverty history. Internationally, there were Live 8 concerts, including at Hyde park—appropriately, during our EU presidency. The successful trade justice lobby of Parliament was followed by progress made at the World Trade Organisation ministerial meeting in Hong Kong, which agreed end date for export subsidies.
	I congratulate the Government, especially the Department for International Development, on their work and on the progress that they have achieved. I also congratulate the Prime Minister, particularly on his African initiatives, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer on his achievements on aid, debt and trade. However, the whole House will, I think, agree that much more remains to be done to turn that progress on aid, trade and debt relief into results on the ground, embedding prosperity, entrenching opportunity and, ultimately, eradicating poverty. The Bill unashamedly asserts the role of Parliament in holding the Executive to account in helping to meet that aim.

Tom Clarke: I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I agree, and that is reflected in the Bill's requirement that there should be reports relating to proper accountancy and accountability, as well as transparency. That, I think, is consistent with the hon. Gentleman's view.
	At the heart of my Bill is an annual report to Parliament on progress made by the United Kingdom on international development. Eveline Herfkens, co-ordinator for the United Nations millennium campaign, has said:
	"Parliamentarians need to scrutinise their governments' Millennium Development Goal 8 positions on an on-going basis to ensure that they are in line with what their governments signed in the Millennium Declaration and Goals."
	People such as Eveline Herfkens have consistently argued that it is critical that Parliaments and parliamentarians monitor their countries' commitments to increase aid, and important for Parliaments to achieve cross-party agreement on that vital issue.
	That is one of the reasons why I welcome the fact that sponsors and supporters of the Bill are drawn from all parts of the House, reflecting a progressive consensus on the need to prioritise international development. I am particularly grateful to the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell), who has intimated to me that he supports the Bill.

Tom Clarke: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I think that the whole House appreciates the excellent work that he is doing as Chair of the International Development Committee, and I take on board the important point he made.
	To return briefly to the issue of what aid accomplishes, the Bill's focus is on results, above all else. The millennium development goals, including the international commitment to halve poverty by 2015, represent clear benchmarks for us all, but the Chancellor has repeatedly made it clear that, on present progress, our goals remain too elusive. He has reminded us that primary education for all will be delivered not by 2015 but by 2130; the halving of poverty, not by 2015, but by 2150, 135 years late; and the elimination of avoidable infant deaths, not by 2015 but by 2165, 150 years late.
	Andy Atkins of Tearfund has said:
	"Shamefacedly the world is currently well off track to achieve the Millennium Development Goals. What is needed to put them back on track is a genuine partnership between North and South to overcome a number of chronic, interlinked problems that lead to more than 30,000 children dying every day from preventable diseases".
	He said:
	"Our job as citizens of one of the richest countries in the world is to hold our leaders to account."
	My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development, whom I am delighted to see with us today, has given a tremendous lead. Few in the House who heard his speech on Africa in the Chamber on 30 June 2005, just ahead of the Make Poverty History week, will doubt his commitment. His desire to see developed nations accept their moral responsibilities, as well as truly to empower poor countries to reach the millennium development goals, was greatly encouraging. How could it be otherwise, when he reminded us that some 315 million people in sub-Saharan Africa, nearly half the population, live on less than $1 a day; some 40 million of its children are not where they should be—in schools; some 250 million Africans do not have safe water to drink or proper sanitation; and 6 million men, women and children died of AIDS in 2004 and of entirely preventable diseases such as tuberculosis and malaria? He was clear about the need to stamp out corruption, and gave examples of effective action to that end in Zambia, South Africa and Nigeria. Like my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Chancellor, he saw the need for partnership—a concept that is embraced by my Bill.
	My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was specific when he said:
	"We are also trying to improve predictability of aid—for example, by the 10-year agreements that we have reached with Rwanda, Sierra Leone and Tanzania. In every case, we assess the risk and put in appropriate safeguards against corruption. We are also working with countries to strengthen and improve their public financial management, because we have to be sure that we can demonstrate that the money reaches the poor."—[Official Report, 30 June 2005; Vol. 435, c. 1468.]
	I welcome those assurances and the admirable commitment to ensuring that aid money is used predictably, safely and effectively.
	This year's United Nations Development Programme human development report underlines the need to eradicate poverty in the developing world, where more than 1 billion people are living in extreme poverty, and the same number do not have access to clean water. We have rightly recognised the injustices, but it is crucial that we continue to work to resolve them.
	My Bill seeks to ensure that aid is delivered effectively and increasingly. It enshrines the target of spending 0.7 per cent. of gross national income on overseas development assistance agreed at the millennium summit in 2000.

James Duddridge: I fully support the Bill. Clause 12 mentions the expenses involved. Given that much of the information that would be provided is duplicated elsewhere, can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the expenses incurred in producing the annual report will be minimal, so that Members on both sides of the House need not be too concerned about the additional costs?

Tom Clarke: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Having managed to persuade both Houses to enact my Disabled Persons Bill, I can assure him with some confidence that the expenditure mentioned in clause 12 would be very limited. I know that none of us would seek to exaggerate the extent of that necessary expenditure.
	I would not wish to make greater claims for the impact of the Bill, were it to be enacted, than its contents justify. However, apart from bilateral contributions to tackling problems faced in developing countries, its main thrust is to achieve two aims that are, are in my view, profoundly relevant. First, we need to work within multilateral institutions, including the European Union, to address the challenges of poverty and deprivation that have existed for far too long.

Ann McKechin: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Buckingham (John Bercow), who is always very eloquent in his passion for development issues.
	I, too, am pleased to speak as one of the supporters of the Bill and to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr. Clarke) on introducing this important and timely measure. My right hon. Friend is of course an expert in private Members' Bills; in fact he is the only Member of Parliament for whom my mother put pen to paper—she wrote to congratulate him on his Bill on disability. He has a strong track record of interest in both these matters in the House.
	The Bill not only bolsters the Government's commitment to eliminate poverty around the globe but creates a new window of opportunity for the increased transparency and accountability of international development assistance and policy, and, as many Members have mentioned this morning, for Parliament to engage thoroughly in detailed debate on these issues in the House.
	As a member of the International Development Committee and chair of the all-party group on debt, aid and trade, I have been inspired and humbled by the idealism and commitment demonstrated by literally hundreds of thousands of members of the public—our constituents—particularly over the last 12 months, in the Make Poverty History campaign. It has been a long, long journey, and it is how I became involved and engaged in political discussion when, over 20 years ago, I became a voluntary campaigner for Oxfam. The issues of debt and aid, far less trade, were pursued only by a very small minority. The degree to which that has changed in Government and in Whitehall is like the difference between night and day.
	I remember taking part in an Oxfam campaign to secure aid, any aid at all, for Cambodia after the expulsion of the Khmer Rouge. I remember visiting and lobbying a Foreign Office official about the Government's policy on Cambodia; he told us with great pleasure that Cambodians really were not that important in the grand scheme of things because they had no natural resources, the country was landlocked and it held no political power: why should the UK have any interest in their plight? It has taken many years and hundreds of thousands of ordinary people, working together in faith movements, through NGOs, through trade unions and taking a strong moral interest in these issues, to keep going with a consistent campaign to urge us, as their political representatives, to take note of what they want this country to represent and to be.
	I had the greatest pleasure, before I came into the House, of taking part as a volunteer in many of those activities. I took part in the march in Birmingham for the G8 summit in 1998 when 70,000 people turned up from all over the United Kingdom. I went there and back in a day in a bus from Glasgow. Many people attended a major public demonstration on something that had no direct influence on their personal lives. I thought that 70,000 was the maximum we could get, but of course we had 250,000 people in Edinburgh last year in the largest public demonstration in Scotland's history. Ordinary people from all walks of life came out, people of all ages and all creeds and colours, to say that they wanted this country to continue to take a lead role in eliminating poverty in the world.
	I am pleased that all the main political parties have indicated their support for the campaign and accepted the case for substantial increases in development aid. The Bill will help to ensure that the UK Government, of whatever political flavour, can be held accountable on those people's hopes and demands.
	Although 2005 was a fantastic year for international development, with unprecedented public mobilisation and significant steps taken by the international community on aid and debt relief, we all know that there is still very much that we need to do. As a member of the International Development Committee, I am well aware that we need to ensure that substantial increases in aid over the next few years are spent wisely. The rise in DFID funding will be approximately 20 per cent. per annum for each of the next four to five years. That is unprecedented for any Department in our history. It will undoubtedly present the Government with a major challenge.
	Multilaterally, either at the European Union or in international finance institutions, there will also be significant increases in aid. There have been increases by other EU members, by Japan, and, to be fair, although it is from a very low base, by the United States of America. We will need to ask hard questions about how that money will be spent. We need vigorously to examine how we ensure that the outputs—the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Angela Browning) correctly said that this is about outputs and how they affect the millennium develop goals—are going to be achieved. That is why the Bill is important in ensuring that part of the process comes within the House.
	I wholeheartedly support the Bill's focus on the millennium development goals, which have been the internationally recognised targets over the past six years. They provide a focus for development work and a means to harmonise the provision of aid throughout the world. Increasingly, there are issues about donor harmonisation. Someone in Tanzania facing up to 80 different donors has different standards of how the aid is applied, different accountancy dates and different audit procedures, which is a recipe for inefficiency. We need to try as far as possible to act internationally and cohesively to achieve the best aid efficiency.
	We must also remember, as the hon. Member for Buckingham (John Bercow) correctly said, that we are discussing basic rights that every human being should have—to food, sanitation, shelter and education. They are the core of human rights.
	The Bill's endorsement of the millennium development goals comes at a crucial time. Unfortunately, although the G8 summit led to substantial progress and a real shift forward, the subsequent UN world summit in September witnessed a worrying lack of commitment and urgency from some world leaders. More importantly, a third of the way towards the 2015 target date, many of the millennium development goals and the nations involved in them are worryingly off track. Fifty countries are going backwards on at least one millennium development goal. As a region, sub-Saharan Africa is failing on every one of them.
	That does not simply mean that world leaders will have to lament missing yet another target. It actually translates into death and suffering for millions of people across our globe. Reaffirming the UK Government's commitment to those goals will reinvigorate global debate on the urgent action needed to turn those promises into reality.

Ann McKechin: The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. It is important that it is not just our Government but NGOs and other donors who, when they receive money from the general public, are directly accountable to the public for how they spend the money. In return, if they advise how much they are spending, and what they are spending it on, not just the donor but the donee nation will know how the money is spent. That is just as important a side of the equation. Parliamentarians from developing nations frequently tell me that their major problem is the lack of information by which they can hold people to account, whether it be their own Governments or NGOs operating within their borders.
	In reaching the millennium goals and increasing aid we have to have a sense of great urgency. I commend the UK Government's efforts to increase and front-load aid. The Bill attributes importance to the 0.7 per cent. target.
	I welcome the holistic approach found in clause 2, which requires the report not only to review DFID's progress towards eradicating poverty but all other Departments. That is a crucial point. DFID's work will only ever have limited success, unless the Government as a whole incorporate poverty reduction policies into their agenda. The report should not only be about the presentation of statistics. It should allow us to ask fundamental questions about how cohesive our own Government's policies are in fostering sustainable development. I should like to give one example. The Tax Justice Network estimates that $385 billion is lost in the developing world every year through a combination of tax evasion, tax avoidance and money laundering. The organisation argues that the British Government are in a unique position to tackle the problem, given the UK's known strength in the international financial markets and the fact that a large number of tax havens—about 35 of the 72 in the world—either have close links with or are dependencies of the United Kingdom.
	Sub-Saharan Africa will be the major beneficiary of last year's G8 agreement, which delivers about $1 billion a year in debt cancellation and about $25 billion in aid. Capital flight in that part of the world is estimated to be $50 billion, and the figure continues to rise in real terms, so any increase in aid to the area threatens to be eroded by money flowing out of the region.
	It is estimated that more than 55 per cent. of international trade passes through offshore tax havens. The biggest cause of the so-called leaked income is the widespread practice of mispricing exports and imports to shift profits out of a country. For example, African diamonds have been exported by businesses at a book price that is only a fraction of their true value, so that the real profit shows up only in the offshore location. Private firms, including many multinational corporations, use a sophisticated and wholly illegal network of notional companies to remove millions of dollars of profit from the taxman. Other leaks, including criminal proceeds and corrupt funds, are important, albeit much smaller in volume, but they piggyback on the sophisticated money-moving apparatus set up by western banks and financial institutions. Every nation loses to that type of system. The loss to the UK is estimated to be £100 billion per annum, so putting in place effective anti-avoidance legislation and working to achieve much greater international co-operation would benefit not only the developing world, but all of us.
	Good governance must include the ability to administer and collect taxes efficiently, but if increasing amounts of untaxed income and profits are taken out of countries, both legitimately and through corruption, that will severely undermine developing nations' ability to increase their own revenue streams, which would in turn allow them to provide essential public services to their citizens and become less aid dependent. Our objective in working toward the millennium development goals is not just to increase aid but to allow countries to become less aid dependent and able to provide basic public services and meet the needs of their own citizens, which in turn increases accountability, helps the establishment of democracy, and encourages good governance.
	We all have a duty to consider every aspect of the way in which we try to achieve that. If we are serious about meeting the millennium development goals, we need to examine our own legislation to rectify and control the problems that I have outlined. It is not simply a matter of increasing funding through a single Government Department. Only by tackling all the issues in a cohesive manner with a unified goal of poverty reduction—from the less obvious issues such as tax havens to central ones such as international trade and the role of the World Trade Organisation—can the UK Government take significant steps towards achieving the millennium development goals and eliminating poverty.
	Debt relief is dear to me as chair of the all-party group on debt, aid and trade. The Bill rightly highlights how crucial debt relief is to international development. The UK Government have an outstanding record of making debt relief central to international political priorities, and the G8 deal, combined with the Paris Club deal on Nigerian debt, will make a huge difference by lifting part of the unsustainable debt burden. We need clear and comprehensive reporting, however, because debt relief is an extremely complex matter. One hundred per cent. debt relief must mean 100 per cent. relief, but there are questions about whether it refers to debt stock or to interest payments.
	Crucially, the Bill includes the reporting of an area known in debt relief circles as export credit debt. That is important because it accounts for 34 per cent. of global debt and about 20 per cent. of heavily indebted poor countries' debt. When private companies export goods abroad, they obtain an export credit from their own country—say, a rich western nation. The export credit is a guarantee that they will receive payment. If the contract goes sour, they reclaim the money from their own country, which in turn seeks to recover the money from the country in which the contract was carried out under its export credit system; and that country is left with the often hopeless task of trying to recover the money from a domestic private firm. As a result of that system, substantial debt is placed on developing nations.
	To be fair, the UK Government have a good record in this respect: they have a policy of writing off the export credit debt of HIPC nations. However, it is important that that element of the debt burden is reported correctly and transparently. I hope that the example provided by the Bill will be followed by other donor nations, so that we can see the full extent of how they are tackling the burden placed on developing nations. By increasing the visibility and scrutiny of such matters, the Bill will highlight the fact that debt relief is not yet a done deal and thus help to maintain the effort to achieve increased debt relief. The Government have recently made announcements on ensuring that other nations support their aim, which I fully support, of extending the HIPC initiative to a further 30 or 40 nations, but the Bill will allow us to track our record and compare it with that of other creditor nations.
	Not only will the Bill increase accountability in respect of the Government's international development policy within Westminster, but through the provisions of clause 8 it calls for agreements between the UK Government and its developing nations partners to increase accountability between the parties. Local ownership and a dialogue between donors and recipients is crucial for successful development programmes that meet the needs of local populations. The provision of a forecast of aid three years in advance will put recipient countries in a better position to plan and implement their development programmes. For too long, aid has been provided from year to year on a rather ad hoc basis, which makes it impossible to plan for long-term investment and infrastructure projects such as hospitals, schools and roads. If we provide clear information on how much we are to spend in the next three years, developing nations can make their own plans on how they hope to invest the funds.
	The Bill will increase accountability to international partners, as I have said, and it will serve as an example for international financial institutions, and perhaps persuade them to apply similar transparency and accountability measures. Last year, the international parliamentarians' petition for democratic oversight of the IMF and the World Bank attracted the signatures of more than 1,000 parliamentarians across the globe, including 250 from the UK. Parliamentarians and civic society groups in the least developed countries often have the least access to comprehensive and reliable information on the source of Government funding. The Bill will assist their efforts to hold their own Governments to account.
	Transparency and accountability are at the heart of the Bill, and I commend my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill for raising those issues. Critically, the Bill relates not only to the amount of aid being spent but to the efficiency with which it is spent: it sets out basic standards to measure efficiency and creates the opportunity for that to be scrutinised and debated in the public realm. The Bill has the potential to contribute to much better public understanding of aid and its complexities, while encouraging new debate, thinking and learning on aid efficiency in the next few years within Westminster and Government Departments, as well as in the broader development community.
	That transparency, by breaking down aid country by country, allows scrutiny of the interests and agenda driving aid allocation, and allows parliamentarians to ensure that the needs of the poor rather than political interests determine that. I commend the Bill for introducing some important practical measures to promote the Government's poverty reduction policy. I hope that it will be followed by an annual debate on the Floor of the House, in which the general public could participate by increasing their representations to parliamentarians throughout the year. I am sure that Members are more than willing to take up that challenge and to represent their constituents in making poverty history.

William Cash: I am glad to follow the hon. Member for Glasgow, North (Ann McKechin). I am also glad to have been able to speak from the platform at the Birmingham meeting in 1999 in respect of debt relief, which was my privilege as chairman of the all-party group on the Jubilee campaign for debt relief.
	It is often thought that commitment to the alleviation of poverty and AIDS in the third world is somehow the prerogative of those from one end of the political spectrum. I would disabuse the House of that notion. The involvement of the hon. Member for Buckingham (John Bercow) and a whole list of Conservative Members shows that it is genuinely an all-party concern, and there are those among us who are deeply and passionately concerned to ensure that the moral dimension associated with international poverty, and particularly the difficulties in Africa, is properly appreciated.
	I want to refer briefly to the Prime Minister's statement to the House on the G8, in which he rightly said:
	"So Africa is an immediate moral cause that commands our attention."—[Official Report, 11 July 2005; Vol. 436, c. 580.]
	I also want to pay tribute, as I have done previously, to the Under-Secretary of State for International Development, the Secretary of State for International Development, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and former Conservative Ministers who have taken an active part in promoting such important issues. I want to refer particularly to the acceleration of concern in recent years, which included the cancellation of 100 per cent. of heavily indebted poor countries' multilateral debts through the efforts of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for International Development.
	Some people were cynical about the Chancellor's trip to Africa, but I am not. It is vital that senior Ministers are seen to be taking an active interest and that they do so. I also commend the right hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr. Clarke) for promoting the Bill with all-party support, because it is important to provide such information as a step towards improvement of the situation. I also endorse the comments of my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Buckingham, the hon. Member for Glasgow, North and my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Angela Browning) and others with respect to the need for a debate and for tackling such matters in a nuts-and-bolts fashion.
	The Prime Minister, in his statement to the G8, said:
	"It was the most detailed and ambitious package for Africa ever agreed by the G8. However, none of it can be implemented or improve the lives of African citizens without significant improvements in standards of governance, transparency and accountability. It is a partnership, not an act of charity. In the end, only Africans can lead and shape Africa. We can help, but every Government in Africa who betrays the principles of good governance betrays Africa."—[Official Report, 11 July 2005; Vol. 436, c. 581.]
	Those were important words. As chairman of the all-party Uganda group, and as vice- chairman of the Tanzania and Kenya groups, I believe strongly that it is in Africa's interests that we speak plainly about those questions. Furthermore, we should do so with the object of improving the lot of those who are governed in those countries, for the moral reasons that the Prime Minister set out, to which many Members of the House are dedicated.
	Having said that, I am also bound to say that, on examining the Bill, I feel that however worthy and valuable its objective in terms of the presentation of information, there is a difficult nuts-and-bolts question that we must confront. Where the Bill refers repeatedly to the Secretary of State's assessment of this, that and the other, the real question will be whether that assessment will necessarily lead to sorting out the problems evident not only in Africa but in other countries where questions of aid and international development apply.
	I refer, for example, to clause 5, which states:
	"The annual report shall include the Secretary of State's assessment of the United Kingdom's contribution both financially and in other ways . . . given through"—
	for example—
	"the European Union".
	My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton made that point with respect to her Bill on the Public Accounts Committee. We all know, if we are straight and honest, that a vast amount of money is maladministered through the European Union, and my good friend Sir Bob Geldof, with whom I have discussed the matter on many occasions, has strong views on it, as I do. Those views are justified. One only needs to read the Court of Auditors' report to realise that I do not need to elaborate. It is there for anyone to see. But what is done about it? Very little. Therefore, while a lot of money goes to people whom everyone in the House believes passionately should be helped, the amounts are not what they should be.
	That raises the question not only of corruption but of maladministration. That problem must be addressed, and my belief is that it could be addressed through rearrangement of the way in which British taxpayers' money, for which Members of the House have an interest and responsibility, is paid over to the European Union and directed to those countries that require aid or help. Our Public Accounts Committee should be able to exercise a more direct control over the way in which it is either maladministered through the EU or ends up in the wrong bank accounts.

William Cash: Indeed; I absolutely endorse what my hon. Friend has said. It is very important that such comments should not be seen as some illustration of a Europhobic outburst, which some like to make them out to be. I wish people would grow up for a bit on these matters. We are talking about practical questions and realities. The hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) and the right hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) gave evidence to the European Reform Forum, as did Will Hutton and Charles Grant and many others from the other side, as it were, of the European debate, and Oxfam has agreed to give evidence on behalf of those such as itself who are deeply concerned about these matters on the implications for international development issues, in order to ensure proper analysis of what is going on. That evidence is periodically published. Above all else, we need to get away from the idea, which is quite often suggested, that the remarks of those of us who have reservations about the way in which the European Union functions are driven by irrational, Europhobic views. In fact, they are based on evidence that needs to be properly evaluated.
	That brings me to my point about transparency. I have heard much today about the question of accountability. In fact, I think that I have heard accountability mentioned about 30 times. It is a matter of what one means by accountability. It can mean in a rather loose sense that information is provided, which is what the Bill provides for. It can mean that there is a debate. However, there might be a vote at the end of that debate and—surprise, surprise—if that debate is in the Government's name or it is an Adjournment debate, we know what to expect in any vote, particularly if the Government have a majority. So, that does not prove anything. If we want to solve the problems that are inherent in the question of where the money goes in respect of vital matters such as people dying of AIDS, malaria or starvation, let us be grown up about it. It is not enough just to talk about such things or even to be informed about them, important as that is. We need to establish the evidential basis for putting things right. That is what accountability means.
	As has been mentioned, the Public Accounts Committee meets only permanent secretaries and officials. It does not meet the Minister and ask him the questions. Let us face it, in International Development questions we do not always get the answers that we would like. We may get the best answer that Ministers are prepared to give, but that might not solve the problem. Clause 8 deals with the issue of transparency, and I would very much like to be added to it provision for an internationally supervised audit, which is the bones of the Bill that I have already proposed. I consulted extensively on my International Development (Anti-corruption) Audit Bill, and I am grateful to the Secretary of State for writing to me about it on 23 July. The Under-Secretary replied in an Adjournment debate in Westminster Hall on the subject. Unfortunately, however, clause 8 of the International Development (Reporting and Transparency) Bill does not address the questions that need to be addressed. I am not suggesting that we should impose our will without being sensitive to the necessity for other Governments to run their own affairs. However, when we provide substantial sums of money to assist those countries, whether that money comes from international organisations or the United Kingdom, whether it is passed through the channels or conduits of the European Union or otherwise, it is essential that it is properly audited.
	That raises the important question of the nature of the public accounts committees of the countries in question. It is no secret that, over the years, substantial sums of money that have been made available through the agencies, Governments and Parliaments of the nations that I have mentioned have gone to countries where the money ends up in the bank accounts of leaders and other people. The report by the Commission for Africa entitled "Our Common Interest" faces up to that problem. I need not go into it in detail, as the issue is set out in chapter 4. The report addresses the need to do the job properly, along the lines that I propose in my Bill. I am not criticising the right hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr. Clarke), as his Bill is a first-class measure, which I support. However, it needs some hard nuts and bolts, such as the external audit that I propose in my Bill.
	Such a measure would be required if analysis showed that other countries' public accounts committees and their internally supervised domestic audits simply are not working. There are means to introduce such provisions, and I believe that we should do so. We should impose conditions on assistance provided under the International Development Act 2002 and encourage other countries and the relevant international financial institutions to do likewise. The kernel of my Bill is the requirement to hold an audit of any public expenditure within the country in question arising from assistance under international development arrangements. That audit should be carried out
	"by or under the supervision of suitably qualified persons authorised by relevant international financial institutions, undertaken, so far as the Secretary of State deems practicable, in conjunction with those appointed for the purpose of such audit within that country".
	Clause 8 of the right hon. Gentleman's Bill states that the annual report should provide an "assessment of transparency". Subsection (2) states:
	"The Secretary of State's assessment of transparency shall take account of whether it is possible to . . . make provision for the independent monitoring and evaluation of the effectiveness of policy and expenditure in achieving its stated objectives".
	It is not enough merely to require the assessment to take account of whether it is "possible" to secure independent monitoring and evaluation. It is a wish list—a hope. I invite the Minister to address the matter when he replies.
	The clause goes on to state that the assessment shall take account of whether it is possible to
	"secure and publish an agreement with recipient countries which will contribute towards the achievement of the objectives listed".
	There is a serious practical question which requires a hard, nuts-and-bolts evaluation. That does not detract from the Bill, which takes matters well forward in a constructive manner. I pay tribute to the promoter for that, but I am not satisfied that it does the job of dealing with an independent evaluation, not simply because of its academic approach to the need for better accounting procedures, but because if an evaluation is not carried out properly, as I described, the people who ought to receive the money will not get it and nobody will know why not. There must be a proper Public Accounts Committee that delivers, and a proper auditing arrangement.
	There are countries that do undertake proper accounting and there are countries that will want to improve their procedures, so I make this constructive suggestion. For countries that have not complied and will not comply, it is essential that we move from encouraging them to the next stage, which is to make that a condition of our providing assistance. That is in line with the Prime Minister's comments in the G8 statement about the need for Africans to help themselves, and in line with good governance and with the thrust of the report , "Our Common Interest". It is imperative that we get to grips with the issue and do not just talk around the subject.

Hugh Bayley: I remind the House that my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr. Clarke) has campaigned long and hard in the House for the poor of the world. I congratulate him on that and on bringing forward the Bill, which I support.
	The hon. Member for Buckingham (John Bercow) told us that his time as the shadow Secretary of State for International Development was a life-changing and attitude-changing period. Anyone who has travelled to a developing country and left the down-town malls to move into the countryside and seen the lives of a quarter or maybe a half of the world's population cannot help but be moved. The hon. Gentleman was right to start by focusing on the lives and livelihoods of the people that my right hon. Friend is trying to help through the Bill.
	I have travelled with the hon. Gentleman to displaced persons' camps—refugee camps—in Darfur. When we look into the eyes of frightened children and frightened parents we cannot return to the UK, forget about it and shrug it off. We have to do something about it, which is what my right hon. Friend seeks to do through his Bill. The measure needs to be supported. All hon. Members on both sides of the House need to talk to colleagues who may have doubts to impress upon them the importance of burying those doubts so as to help the people we intend to help.
	I am sometimes humbled by the reaction that we get from the poorest of the poor when we arrive, as far as they are concerned, like spacemen from a different planet. In one of the refugee camps in Darfur I started a conversation with a family—husband, wife and child—who had just arrived at the camp the night before. Their shelter had not yet been built. They had bent a few sticks in arches and later they hoped to gather some cardboard, polythene sheet or something to cover the structure so that they and their child could shelter not from the rain but from the sun. Their possessions were what they had carried with them as they had fled from persecution, from their own Government's jets bombing their village, and from Arab militias who, after the bombing, were chasing them away from their land, their livestock and their child's future.
	Those people had next to nothing, but they asked me to sit and drink a cup of karkadee, a sort of herbal tea that people in the area drink. What they gave to me was probably a greater proportion of their entire family wealth at the time than I shall give in development assistance throughout my life, despite being a regular donor to a number of development charities. We stop and think, and realise that we must do more.
	When I went to Kenya with the Select Committee on International Development, I saw in the slums of Nairobi the work that a women's voluntary body, Kenwa, was doing in campaigning for the rights of women who are themselves and their families affected by AIDS. I went to the organisation's community centre and was met—those who have been to Africa know that this happens fairly often—by teams of children dancing to celebrate the visit. Their faces were even more shocking than the frightened eyes of those people who had just arrived at the refugee camp . That was because the eyes of the children were dead. The faces of those children were empty. Their parents had died from AIDS and, if it were not for the voluntary body, they, too, would be dead from neglect and starvation. They were exhausted and empty. They needed support, which has to come largely from the rich world. If it does not, we doom them to an existence that, as the hon. Member for Buckingham said, most people in this country cannot even imagine.
	I was pleased to bring the leader of Kenwa to London to testify before the all-party Africa group, which I chair, when we were preparing a report on AIDS. I felt that it was important for people in this country to know what Kenwa was doing. The leader is a remarkable woman. She has been HIV positive for 10 years. In the middle of the Select Committee's visit to her project, someone told her that a woman was dying, so she cancelled everything and asked me, "Please go and see her and reassure her that someone will bury her." I accompanied her to meet the woman. When one sees what those people are doing, one knows that a little money, help and support will increase their impact enormously. We must ensure that that support is available.
	Last year was designated as a year for Africa. The previous year, the Government set up the Commission for Africa, which responded to a development strategy for the continent that Africans had written, the New Partnership for Africa's Development. The Commission for Africa's report and the NEPAD strategy are widely highly regarded. The commission's influence led last year to commitments from the rich nations to double their aid to Africa and to increase by almost double aid to other countries. It led to decisions to write off 100 per cent. of the debt of the poorest indebted countries. Unfortunately, it failed to lead to the progress that all hon. Members wanted on trade.
	To try to drive forward the agenda for Africa in our country, other donor countries and in Africa—without reciprocal policy change in Africa, our aid will not achieve the desired results—I chaired the preparatory committee for a conference funded by the British Council, the UK branches of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and the Inter-Parliamentary Union and the Department for International Development. It brought together 119 parliamentarians from G8, EU and African countries to discuss what we needed to do as parliamentarians to ensure that the agreements on aid and debt to secure a better future for Africa materialise and achieve the results that we want.
	At the end of the conference, which was held in the British museum, we passed a declaration. Among other things, it stated:
	"We undertake to hold our government to account and to exercise oversight . . . by requiring our Executives to make annual reports to parliament about the official development assistance and other development resources which they have received or distributed and how it has been spent."
	We sought to impose that obligation on every Government in Africa, the G8 countries and in the European Union. That is precisely what the Bill would do. It would ensure that we, as a Parliament, impose on our Government the obligation to report annually on whether they are meeting the important agreements that were made last year as part of the year for Africa.
	If we pass the Bill, we can hold our heads high when we talk to parliamentarians from other donor countries and say, "We have done what we all agreed that we needed to do. When will you ensure that there is a similar report to the Assemblée Nationale, the Bundestag, Congress, the Japanese Diet?" and so on. We need to change the way in which we examine the effectiveness of the aid that we provide, but if we are going to change the lives of the people in the poorest countries of the world, it will not be enough for Britain alone to do that. The whole donor community needs to do it.
	Clause 2 of the Bill puts an obligation on our Government to provide a report that covers the full range of the Government's work, not just the work of the Department for International Development. Last year, as part of its policy contribution to the year for Africa, the all-party group on Africa published a report, "The UK Government and Africa in 2005: How Joined Up is Whitehall?" Our conclusion was that, in many areas, there was good policy co-ordination between Government Departments. In the case of debt write-off, for example, there was good co-ordination between the Department for International Development and the Treasury. However, that was not always the case. On trade reform, better co-ordination is needed between agriculture policy, trade policy and international development policy. We still have an over-reliance in the NHS and our health private services on skilled health workers from the poorest countries in the world. We also need better co-ordination in fighting corruption, as the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) mentioned.
	Clause 6 deals with the 0.7 per cent. of gross national income target. I congratulate the Secretary of State for International Development and our Government on setting a timetable for the UK to meet that target. However, we need an annual report to check on our progress. We need to be aware of what is happening, because there could be a change of Government policy in the future. Worse still, there could be a change of Government. We have heard support from both sides of the House for the Government's international development policies, and implicit support for the 0.7 per cent. target. That is a good thing, but I hope that the pressure to meet that target will continue to be voiced from both sides of the House.
	It is worth looking back in history to see how policies can change when a party moves from Opposition into Government, in order to realise just how important it is for Parliament to require the Executive to produce the annual report proposed in the Bill. Thirty years ago, in 1975, the then Labour Government published a White Paper on what was then called overseas development, "More Help for the Poorest". That was the first British Government document to propose that aid be refocused on the poorest countries and on the poorest groups of people in those countries. The White Paper was strongly supported by the then Conservative spokesman on overseas development, Christopher Tugendhat, who said in a debate in the House on 7 November 1975:
	"I welcome the distinction drawn by the White Paper and its emphasis on directing United Kingdom bilateral aid as far as possible to the poorest countries".
	On the volume of aid, he said:
	"The Minister"—
	that is, the Labour Minister—
	"said that he did not wish to argue the case for more aid in the House. I do not think that he needs to do so, as much of what he would say would be generally accepted."—[Official Report, 7 November 1975; Vol. 899, cc. 790, 792.]
	Mr. Tugendhat also made it clear later in the debate that he was speaking for his party as a whole. When challenged by a sceptical Labour MP about whether the then Leader of the Opposition supported the policy, he said that
	"my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has this subject quite as much at heart as anyone else on our side of the House and that her sympathies are very much with the poor and the needy."—[Official Report, 7 November 1975; Vol. 899, c. 862.]
	I remind the House that few things changed more quickly in 1979, after the change of Government, than the commitment to overseas aid. In 1979, the UK spent 0.51 per cent. of gross national income on development assistance. By the following year, that had dropped to 0.35 per cent. The purpose of aid had changed too. In February 1980, Neil Marten, the Minister for Overseas Development, announced that the Government would
	"give greater weight in the allocation of our aid to political, industrial and commercial considerations".—[Official Report, 20 February 1980; Vol. 979, c. 464.]
	What happened? The aid-and-trade provision was substantially expanded. Aid was used to support British companies, such as Leyland buses, Hawker Siddeley aircraft and Westland Helicopters. Of course, we remember the case of the Pergau dam, which prompted me to bring before the House, when my party was in opposition, a ten-minute Bill to require aid to be used, as is now the policy, for the purpose of poverty alleviation, rather than export promotion.
	I appreciate that there is a vigorous debate going on in the Conservative party about its future policy direction. We have heard a lot of progressive policy from Conservative Members in today's debate, and I know from speaking to those Members over many years that these are deeply held convictions. They feel passionately about the issue, and I hope passionately that they win the policy debate in their party.
	I hope, too, that we and our party retain the commitment, which we have at the highest levels of government, to development assistance. However, we cannot know for sure that the progressives, if I may call them that, on the Opposition Benches—the Conservative modernisers—will win the debate, and I cannot be absolutely sure that the pro-development caucus in my party will continue always to gain the support from the highest levels of government that we gain now. I want both to happen. If we had an annual report to the House on what was happening—in terms of volume and of quality—with our development assistance, we would be better able, as pro-development Members of Parliament on both sides of the House, to ensure that our respective parties backed what we were doing.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill changed for the better the lives of hundreds of thousands of disabled people in this country with his Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986. Two decades later, he is still held in high regard by development organisations and campaigners in this country. He made his name with that legislation. If this Bill gets on to the statute book, with the help of hon. Members on both sides of the House, it will change for the better the lives of hundreds of millions of the poorest and most needy people in the world. Let us all ensure that that happens.

Greg Mulholland: Due to the length of the contributions from some hon. Members, I was beginning to wonder whether their attention to detail and enthusiasm would lead not only to me not being called, but perhaps to them inadvertently talking the Bill out. I am glad that that has not happened.
	I am pleased to be able to speak in support of the Bill, and indeed to show my solidarity with the community that we have here in the House involving those of us on both sides who are passionately committed to development issues. More importantly, I am happy to stand in solidarity with the global community, which is the community that is particularly involved with the Bill. However, I am disappointed that doing so means that today I am unable to serve the community that I represent—my constituency. I am having to miss surgeries to be here. I hope that the Government consider that issue in terms of the scheduling of private Members' Bills.
	As has been said, 2005 was a year that began with huge hope, energy and enthusiasm by what I call the coalition of hope—the global community mobilising to try to do something about the scandal of global poverty. Unfortunately, in the end it was a year of limited promises and huge disappointment. The Bill, which I support in its entirety, is about openness and honesty. We therefore have to start by being honest about what was achieved last year at the G8 summit and the WTO. Behind the back-slapping of the pop stars and politicians, the reality of what emerged from the global commitments made last year has been exaggerated; it was disappointing and substantially inadequate.
	Of the $48 billion of aid that was promised, only $20 billion is new money, and of that some may come from future aid budgets. It is five years too late. Although some of the debt settlement is of course very welcome, it will in reality be about $1 billion a year, whereas the UN has said that $10 billion a year in debt relief is needed to make any difference, and that is without its being conditional.
	I am glad to say, however, that the Bill marks a positive start to 2006, and all those of us who are involved in campaigning for international development must retain our sense of optimism, or the cause will be lost. I therefore welcome the Bill; it is a small but significant step in bringing more openness and honesty into both Government and global policy on international development.
	The Bill is important for two reasons connected with the general public, as well as being important to Members, as has been stressed. There are really two sorts of people in this country: the first group is made up of those who are, frankly, largely ignorant about international development issues and those who not only are ignorant but question the effectiveness of the UK's aid programmes. How many times have we heard people ask, "How do I know that the money will get to those who need it?"? We need to engender confidence in those people that aid is indeed being directed where it should be spent and to those who need it. The Bill, I believe, would do that.
	The second group of people are those of us who are genuinely committed to challenging the global apartheid of injustice and poverty. The Bill would allow us to see whether the rhetoric is matched by reality. It would give all of us in the House and outside the chance to see whether the promises are being kept and whether the millennium development goals have a chance of being achieved, not in 150 years, which is the current position in one case, but in 10 years. We know that it will not be the latter.
	The Bill is about openness and accountability. There is will on both sides of the House and outside, and in the NGOs. The Bill is very simple in its aim: it will see that the promises of this Government and of world leaders are kept and that they lead to the progress that will lift millions out of poverty. I welcome it.

Katy Clark: I am grateful for the opportunity to put on record my support for this valuable initiative by my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr. Clarke). I welcome the cross-party support for the Bill. It shows how far we have come that all political parties are setting targets for when we are to meet the target, set so many years ago, for the amount of aid that we should provide to developing countries, which, as we are all so well aware, are suffering from such extreme poverty and inequality.
	When I first came to this place in May after the general election, I experienced a short two months when the issues in the Bill were very much at the top of the political agenda. That, of course, was because of the Labour Government's inspired decision to put debt, aid and, in particular, Africa at the top of the agenda for the G8 summit in Glenrothes. That period showed how important it is that politicians put the issue at the top of the agenda. We are all aware of powerful political lobbies in all our constituencies who put articulate cases on why the issue has to be tackled. It is, however, only when politicians and our political leaders recognise the importance of the issues that we are able to galvanise the kind of demonstration that we saw in Edinburgh last July when 250,000 people marched through the city in what was probably the biggest political demonstration ever seen in Scotland.
	Like many in the House, I was one of the many on that march. It was a moving occasion, but one of the more significant issues arising for me was the number of young people there. They were engaging perhaps for the first time on a political issue. They went on that demonstration in the genuine belief that the Government would do something to change things and take the issues forward. I believe that we did achieve many things last year in Glenrothes, but of course we have a long, long way to go.
	The Bill provides an important way to try structurally to make sure that the issues become far more central to debates in the House. For that reason, it is an important initiative.
	The hon. Member for Buckingham (John Bercow) talked about the strong moral case for making sure that we tackle the issues. Of course, it is an outrage that 50,000 people die every day as a result of poverty. That is one third of the deaths in the world every day. There is a huge moral case for tackling the issues. More than that, though, there is a strong political case for taking the issues on, full frontal. It is in none of our interests to have such inequality and extreme poverty in the world. If we allow it to continue, and if in an age of high-level communication and television we do not make sure that the western world takes the issues on and finds the political solutions, the political problems that they create will come back to haunt us.
	The types of inequality and the extremes of poverty even within countries in the developing world—never mind the differences between the UK and many of the poorer countries—create a political inequality and injustice that will lead to political problems for us all. My right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill is making a proposal that would enable us to make sure that our moral outrage at the injustice that we see and the political and economic injustice are addressed.

John Bercow: The hon. Lady is making an eloquent speech. I agree with her; she is absolutely right. Does she agree with me in turn that the peoples of the developing world who are suffering so much will have reason over a period to be ever more resentful of us in the rich part of the world on grounds of neglect, in terms of the inadequacy of development assistance, but perhaps even more on grounds of exacerbation of their problems through trade policy? That is not an accident; it is deliberate.

Eric Forth: You will see from the notes in my hand, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I propose to speak for only a few minutes on the Bill.
	I want to start with something that I have sometimes said in the House in this context. It is one of my favourite quotes, and it is something that Sir Winston Churchill said in 1931:
	"I am not very anxious to help private Member's Bills. I have seen a great many of them brought forward, and in most cases it was a very good thing that they did not pass. I think there ought to be a very effective procedure for making it difficult for all sorts of happy thoughts to be carried on to the Statute Book."
	That is a sentiment with which I thoroughly agree, as you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as I attend the House assiduously on Fridays.
	Interestingly, this Bill is a paradox. At one and the same time, it contains too much and too little. The "too much", which has been touched on a number of times in the debate, is that in many ways it is otiose and redundant, as it seeks to repeat much information that is already in the public domain, although I concede that it seeks to bring it together. It is also wrongly targeted in the sense that at several points, bizarrely, it seeks to make the Secretary of State assess his own work. I should have thought that that does not take the subject much further forward: it is like asking a pupil to assess his or her own examination papers. That part of the Bill is almost certainly misdirected.
	I have been pleased, however, by a number of contributions during the debate that have pointed out weaknesses in the Bill or areas where it could be strengthened. I have such thoughts—I will only touch on one or two of them at this stage, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but, as you will know, we will have ample opportunity subsequently to amend the Bill in different ways.
	I should like the Bill to be strengthened by it having to give more details on what recipient countries spend, for example, on military and defence or bureaucratic and diplomatic matters. I am rather uneasy, on behalf of my taxpayers, that money of ours should go to countries that have spending priorities that would not bear any scrutiny in our community or political context. In the cause of transparency I would like a lot more information to be produced about how recipient countries spend their money, before we give them even more. That would strengthen the case that the right hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr. Clarke) and his friends seek to make.
	Similarly, we need to know a lot more about what non-governmental and charitable organisations are giving to various countries in order to set in context the amount that the taxpayer is expected to give through the various vehicles that we have in this country, either directly or through multilateral and European Union sources.
	I recognise the aims of the Bill—as with most Bills on Fridays, the aims are very laudable—but surely we are here on behalf of our voters and taxpayers to satisfy ourselves that it is not just a good thought, heart-warming and makes us feel better about ourselves, but achieves most or all or something of what it seeks to achieve. This Bill is too general, it is insufficiently focused and in some respects requires strengthening. I hope that we will be able to do that subsequently.
	I am very keen for the Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Mr. Vara) to get an airing in the Chamber today. I hope that the Bill promoted by the right hon. Gentleman will, on receiving its Second Reading, as it undoubtedly will in a short time, go into Committee and come back on Report in order that those of us who seek to amend it have a jolly good opportunity to do so.

Andrew George: I too congratulate the right hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr. Clarke) not only on his good fortune in securing a high place in the list of private Members' Bills, but on making such good and effective use of that opportunity. I congratulate those who have spoken: the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Angela Browning), the right hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East and Wallsend (Mr. Brown), my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (John Barrett), the right hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith), the hon. Members for Buckingham (John Bercow), for Glasgow, North (Ann McKechin), for Stone (Mr. Cash), for Plymouth, Sutton (Linda Gilroy), for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), and for City of York (Hugh Bayley), my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West (Greg Mulholland), the hon. Members for North Ayrshire and Arran (Ms Clark) and for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Ellwood) and the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth).
	I am pleased to have the indication, particularly from the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, that the Bill will succeed in getting into Committee. I agree with him that at that point it will require further amplification, clarification and strengthening in order that it achieves the objectives that the right hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill intends.
	The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst is right that private Members' Bills should not merely be warm-hearted. We must discharge our responsibilities to look hard-headedly at these issues and ensure that private Members' Bills are fit for purpose. We need to ask not only whether the Bill has a beneficial purpose but what is the problem for which it is intended to be the solution. Is it sufficient to justify the effort and parliamentary time put into bringing it into law? I believe that it is justified and I shall give a couple of primary reasons for supporting it.
	There is a need for clarification of the effectiveness of UK aid in poverty reduction, which to an extent the DFID report attempts to cover. The report does not however address properly the kind of issues that the right hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill intends to include in an annual report. When I asked the Secretary of State for clarification of the effectiveness of aid, I found that such information was not available. In a written question answered on 9 January, I asked:
	"what assessment he has made of the number of people lifted out of extreme poverty as a result of pro-poor funding by his Department to developing countries",
	and the answer came back:
	"DFID has not produced such an assessment."—[Official Report, 9 January 2006; Vol. 441, c. 207W.]
	That answer exposes the need for further work. One of the Bill's intentions, although it is hidden in clause 2, is to achieve clarification of the interdepartmental nature of Government aid to developing countries and the effectiveness of joined-up government. That intention needs to be amplified, as it is implied, but not made clear, in clause 2, and I welcome the opportunity to do so through the legislative process.

Mark Simmonds: I, too, congratulate the right hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr. Clarke), both on his success in the ballot and on his excellent choice of subject. I congratulate him on his detailed, articulate and generous introduction to the Bill, as well as on the marvellous way in which he has corralled a diverse and disparate group of people both inside and outside the House to support its general principles. The Opposition, particularly the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell), and I, support those general principles. Sadly, my hon. Friend cannot be in the Chamber today, as he is leaving for Rwanda to study conflict prevention, which is a fundamental foundation and building block in the alleviation of poverty through economic regeneration in much of the developing word.
	As I said, the Opposition support the Bill's general principles, and I hope that in his reply to the debate the Minister will support those principles as well as many of the details and proposed amendments and improvements suggested by hon. Members on both sides of the House. Indeed, I shall make some suggestions myself.
	Before I do that, may I put the mind of the hon. Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley) at rest? The Conservative party, like the Labour party, is a broad church. I assure the hon. Gentleman that, like the Government, we are committed to working towards the UN target of spending 0.7 per cent. of our national income on aid by 2013. We recognise and support the provision in the Bill for monitoring progress towards this commitment. We also support the ambitious targets of the millennium development goals and are deeply concerned that sub-Saharan Africa will not meet any of these targets, as was highlighted by the hon. Member for Glasgow, North (Ann McKechin), whose contribution was excellent if, sadly, a little lengthy.
	We agree with the Government on the HIPC initiative, which has the potential to relieve the burden of debt on many countries. We support the international finance facility on immunisation, to which I shall return. We support the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. The Conservative party shares the aspirations of the Government, as set out at the G8 summit, and we want the Gleaneagles commitments to be implemented expeditiously. Finally, we recognise that reform of the world trade rules is essential if the poorest nations are to be able to trade themselves out of poverty. We, like all hon. Members, are disappointed at the outcome of the WTO meeting in Hong Kong, particularly as one of the original key commitments of the millennium development goals was to create an open and non-discriminatory multilateral trading system. Sadly, we are still a long way from that target.
	We welcome and support the principles of the Bill. Above all, we welcome the provision that would require the Department for International Development to report annually on the effectiveness of its aid programmes in reducing poverty. DFID is a well regarded organisation, which is internationally recognised as a leading aid agency. We can and should all be proud of it, but it could be doing more.
	The public support aid because of outputs—lives saved, children educated and HIV deaths and infections prevented. But DFID is still too focused on money spent, rather than its effectiveness. DFID's systems for evaluating and assessing its projects are weak and urgently need to be improved. As was highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Angela Browning), an internal DFID report found:
	"While there are many examples of positive contribution to development progress, there is generally insufficient information on the links between DfID's inputs and interventions on the one hand, and the positive outcomes observed on the other".
	The report also found that
	"there is no single, overall strategic plan which guides the allocation and deployment of DfID resources".
	It is therefore clear that DFID should strengthen and develop its systems to measure the effectiveness of aid in reducing poverty. Robust systems for evaluating the effectiveness of DFID's budget must be implemented, and we support the Bill as making a significant contribution to resolving those issues.
	We acknowledge that there is some question whether the Bill duplicates the statistical reports produced annually by DFID. However, the Bill is necessary, as has been pointed out, to formalise that procedure and extend it. I agree with the right hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill that formalising it as the Bill sets out will upgrade the effectiveness and significance of the reporting structure and allow for re-allocating funds away from the least effective projects. I also agree with the right hon. Gentleman that a single annual report could stimulate comprehensive debate and facilitate year-on-year comparisons, hopefully on the Floor of the House.
	We agree with specific provisions in the Bill, and I shall put those on the record. We agree with the overarching architecture and objectives of the Bill—to bring transparency and accountability to international development spending. DFID's systems for evaluating the effectiveness of its budget allocation are weak and need to be strengthened. True accountability can be achieved only through robust assessment of aid effectiveness, and we support the Bill's aims in this direction. Furthermore, we support the Bill's aim to focus spending on low-income countries.
	We also support the measures outlined in clause 2 which would improve policy coherence across Departments, assessing the actions of all Departments towards the aim of alleviating poverty.
	Clause 3(1)(e) and (f) provides for debt relief figures to be published, and we are strongly in favour of such a commitment as debt relief accounts for about 7 per cent. of expenditure on development in 2004–05. As has rightly been highlighted today, there has been some obfuscation and confusion in this area, and significant questions over delivery of commitments are being asked and need to be clarified.
	This is an opportunity to talk in general about the Bill, but some aspects can be improved and I want to put those before the House. Our greatest concern is the lack of detail in clause 7 on how the effectiveness of aid will be monitored. We recognise that measuring aid is difficult and challenging, but it is essential that every effort is made so as to ensure best value for taxpayers' money and the greatest possible reduction in poverty.
	The Secretary of State should be required to attempt to obtain the greatest possible reduction in poverty with the resources available, to him in this instance, or to her maybe in the future, each year. To that end we would like to see clear, rigorous and independent evaluation and measurement of the effectiveness of aid spending in reducing poverty, and an explicit comparison of aid effectiveness across different projects and different forms of aid spending. That should be accompanied by systematic measures to reassess spending allocations and priorities so as to ensure the greatest possible reduction in poverty with the limited funds that are available.
	Specifically, in clause 7(2), assistance effectiveness monitoring is restricted to the 10 largest recipients of British bilateral aid, a point rightly highlighted by my hon. Friends the Members for Kettering (Mr. Hollobone) and for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Ellwood). The right hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill said that that was limited because of bureaucratic considerations. I hope very much that in Committee and on Report we can overcome those bureaucratic considerations that I am sure have been put before the right hon. Gentleman by the respective Ministers and officials in the Department.
	Aid effectiveness should be as rigorous as possible, and if the 10 largest recipient countries were to change regularly, as would be quite possible, it would hinder the year-on-year comparisons that are an essential part of the reporting structure. Additionally, in the financial year 2004–05, £948 million of the total £2,145 million spent on bilateral aid, or just 44.2 per cent., went to the 10 largest recipient countries. So if the Bill remains unamended, with just 10 countries accounting for their bilateral aid, well over half of British bilateral aid would not be subject to the Bill. Accounting for the top 10 countries also does not take into consideration significant contributions from the British taxpayer, such as £48 million to Mozambique and £47 million to Kenya in the financial year 2004–05. Nor would it take into account money that could not be allocated to a specific country.
	Furthermore, there is a lack of clarity in clause 7(2) regarding the areas of focus. There appear to be a number of oversights that should be discussed, such as the addition of education and diseases other than HIV/AIDS. I would argue that if the millennium development goals are to form the basis for this list, it should be done explicitly on the face of the Bill. In addition, I would like to see the wording of the clause tightened to provide for a detailed report on how and to what extent the aid spent directly contributes to the goals set out.
	We also think that clause 4 on millennium goal 8 should be clarified. Goal 8 does not lend itself to quantitive measurement. However, we recognise that there must be assessment of progress towards its completion. Further consideration must be given as to how goal 8 can be accurately monitored. There is clarity in the Bill regarding untied aid. Clause 4(3)(b) requires the reporting of the proportion of multilateral assistance that is untied. The Government have stated unequivocally that all British bilateral aid is untied, a policy with which we are in agreement. However, some confusion appears to remain, and it would help if the Minister, when he replies, would make a clear distinction between aid conditionality, which has been dropped, and aid criteria, which continue.
	We would also like to see clause 8(2) strengthened, a point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). The Bill asks the Secretary of State only to
	"take account of whether it is possible"—
	that is, to consider independent monitoring.
	As my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst has said, we also want to strengthen clause 8(2). The Bill currently asks the Secretary of State only to
	"take account of whether it is possible"—
	in other words, to consider—
	"to . . . make provision for . . . independent monitoring".
	We want to strengthen and improve the wording to ensure that the assessment of transparency is independent. We want to see more detail on who will conduct the monitoring, whether that person will be independent and what the relationship will be between the independent monitoring body and democratically accountable Ministers who come to this House to explain the expenditure of British taxpayers' money.

Gareth Thomas: I join other hon. Members in congratulating my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr. Clarke) on securing this debate, and commend the passion and skill with which he made his case to the House. No Labour Member will be surprised by that, as he has long been a campaigner on these issues. He consistently championed the needs of those in sub-Saharan Africa, Asia and Latin America long before such causes became fashionable. I agree with the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Mark Simmonds) that my right hon. Friend has performed a remarkable feat in assembling such a coalition of support inside and outside the House, but nobody who knows him will be remotely surprised by that.
	This has been an excellent debate. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Angela Browning) for her comments, particularly about the considerable opportunities for scrutiny that already take place in the House in relation to international development and the way in which the Bill will further help such scrutiny. The hon. Members for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) and Leeds, North-West (Greg Mulholland) made similar points later in the debate.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East and Wallsend (Mr. Brown) and the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (John Barrett) rightly congratulated my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, and the Government more generally, on the commitment to the 0.7 per cent. target. My right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith), in confirming his support for the Bill, referred to the excellence of Oxfam, which is based in his constituency and which also supports the Bill.
	The hon. Member for Buckingham (John Bercow) and my hon. Friends the Members for City of York (Hugh Bayley) and for North Ayrshire and Arran (Ms Clark) eloquently echoed the moral case for development assistance that my right hon. Friend made in his introduction to the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, North (Ann McKechin) referred to the huge appetite among the British people for more progress in the fight against poverty.
	The hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) reminded the House that development must be a partnership and that developing countries themselves have a responsibility further to strengthen good governance. My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Linda Gilroy) paid tribute to the huge contribution that co-operatives make in tacking poverty in the developing world.
	The hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Ellwood) rightly mentioned the importance of humanitarian assistance. We will reflect further on that. The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and the hon. Members for St. Ives (Andrew George) and for Boston and Skegness raised, in their very different ways, a challenging series of questions for the House to reflect on if the Bill progresses, as the Government hope that it will.
	Aid well spent can make a huge difference. In Burundi this year, a newly-elected Government scrapped primary school fees, and our £2 million of assistance is helping UNICEF to refurbish 500 schools and train 4,000 teachers, bringing hope to many young people in that country who are being given the chance to learn to read and write and to have better lives as a result. In Pakistan, as we speak, our £58 million of humanitarian assistance is helping to shelter and to feed the people of Kashmir—victims of the terrible earthquake in December.
	It has been rightly highlighted that while much has been done, much more still needs to be done. That is why the Government have recognised the need to commit more development assistance. We have trebled our aid budget since 1997. By the end of the current spending round, we will have reached 0.47 per cent. We are committed, as hon. Members know, to reaching the UN's 0.7 per cent. goal by 2013, and earlier if we can launch the excellent idea of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, namely, the international finance facility.
	We recognise the need to be accountable for that progress from 0.2 per cent. to 0.7 per cent., and more generally how aid is used and how other Government policies impact on poor countries. The Bill helpfully codifies the way that Government report on development and how they account for the resources that are spent, and it will place the need for such a report on a formal legislative basis. Helpfully, the Bill seeks to promote the transparency with which assistance is provided.
	We take seriously our responsibility for ensuring that the money entrusted to us by Parliament for development is used for the purposes intended, and is managed through systems that ensure high levels of accountability to the UK public. We continue to invest in similar systems of accountability in our partner Governments and partner organisations to ensure that money is well spent and is used for what it was intended. In managing public funds we are, for example, required to comply fully with the range of requirements under Government accounting rules, and our use of those resources is subject to an annual financial audit by the National Audit Office. That audit covers our procedures for managing all types of expenditure, including support given to multinational organisations, to non-governmental organisations, to the private sector and that given directly to partner Governments through budget support or other financial instruments.
	The Auditor General provides his formal opinion on our financial statements to Parliament, and his opinion has always been positive. In addition, the NAO carries out a rolling programme of studies on how well the Department manages its use of public funds. As the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton said, the Public Accounts Committee can hold public hearings, and does, that are based on the reports to which I have referred. There is also the International Development Committee, which challenges the way in which we use our funds.

Shailesh Vara: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
	During my speech, I propose to set out the current position of the national health service breast screening programme as well as explaining my proposals. I shall also try to deal with other important issues, including funding and resources.
	The Bill has cross-party support and acknowledges that the United Kingdom has one of the highest breast cancer death rates in the world. One in nine women in the UK will suffer breast cancer at some point in their lives. Every year, 41,000 women are diagnosed with breast cancer and, sadly, some 13,000 die of the disease.
	We must not forget that there are other victims: husbands, partners, parents, children, other relatives and friends. I shall quote briefly from an e-mail that I received from somebody in Devon, who sums up the anguish caused to other family members. His wife died when she was 40. He says:
	"it is more likely that there will be parents, a partner and children who will also suffer the impact of this disease. In our case our daughter was 4 when my wife died and both her parents still survive her . . . for my daughter to have been able to have spent a few more years with her mum would have been priceless."
	Breast cancer also has a knock-on effect on everyday life. A diagnosis can, and does, affect relationships, employment, mortgages and life insurance. Prescription charges can be a long-term strain, and for those with children, child care can become a problem, especially for those with young children. Finding or being able to afford child care while having chemotherapy or radiotherapy treatment is neither easy nor cheap. Incidentally, it is a little-known fact that, every year, some 300 men suffer from breast cancer, of whom about 95 die.
	The present policy is that women between the ages of 50 and 70 are invited to have a screening free of charge every three years. However, those over 70 have to apply for a referral themselves. My proposal is that the age spectrum be increased to cover women between the ages of 45 and 75—in effect, adding five years at either end. I want to put on record the very valuable work that the staff involved in the screening programme undertake on a daily basis. We cannot praise highly enough their dedication and their commitment to their work. They are a tribute to the health service.

Shailesh Vara: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point and I agree that the more frequency we can have, the more detection we can have. Detection means prevention, and I will address the issue of over-70s.

Angela Browning: As a sponsor of my hon. Friend's Bill, I am pleased that we have time to debate it today. On the question of women aged over 70, I have read that the NHS reason for not offering them screening is that should breast cancer present at that stage, it is not considered an early death and that other diseases start to kick in. I really do not agree with that. Quite clearly, if somebody develops breast cancer post-70 and it is not detected, it will spread to other parts of the body and become a terminal illness. Surely we are not only talking about preventing early death, important though that is, but trying to consider preventing death by cancer per se?

Shailesh Vara: Certainly that is one of the issues that has been raised. As well as lack of funds, there is a lack of technical equipment and of specialist staff. The Government have a record: when issues need to be addressed and they have the will to do it, they are prepared to make long-term plans. In the 2001 manifesto, for example, Labour thought that there ought to be more hospitals. It said that by 2010—a five year plan—there would be 100 more hospitals. It is somewhat inconsistent that the Government are able to be far sighted in some areas and think of a programme, yet for this issue, which affects one in nine women in the country, the excuse is often made that there is a lack of resources, and the arguments stop at that point. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the point and allowing me to make matters a little clearer.
	What is the value of a life? The terminology is crude, but the reality is that we talk of money. No precise value has been put on a life, but I understand that the Department for Transport made an effort and in 2004 valued the lost economic output of an individual who dies in a road traffic accident at slightly less than £1.4 million. I repeat, £1.4 million is the value that the DFT puts on the life of someone who dies in a road traffic accident. It is fair to say that the value of a life lost to breast cancer is similar. That £1.4 million covers lost output, medical costs and human costs—an amount to reflect grief, pain and suffering.
	My proposals would cost a mere £40 million. The breakdown is simple: I advocate four more screenings, two at the lower age range and two at the upper age range; each screening round costs £10 million, so the total cost of the extra screenings would be £40 million. It is clear that not many deaths would have to be prevented to justify the expenditure of £40 million.
	Some people argue that there should be annual screenings for women aged 45 to 49 to take account of breast tissue being more dense and the fact that tumours progress more rapidly in younger women. In an ideal world, that would of course be preferable; but until the ideal is attained, the two screenings that I propose must be preferable to the none that women in that age range currently receive.
	I am mindful of the age trial—a survey that has been in progress since 1991 and is considering annual screening for women aged 40 to 50. Like the Minister, I look forward to seeing the results, which I understand are due very soon.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Angela Browning) alluded to the argument that there is a lack of the resources, equipment and specialists necessary to do as I propose in my Bill. The answer is not to use the lack of resources as a reason not to act; it is to provide the resources. Those resources do not have to be provided tomorrow. There is no reason why a plan cannot be put in place for the future—for five, seven or 10 years hence—which would allow time to train specialists, obtain equipment, find accommodation and deal with all the other requirements. It is a matter of the Government having the political will to recognise that there is an issue to be addressed and to commit themselves to dealing with it.
	In the context of breast cancer screening, that is precisely what happened in 2000. In a statement on 5 December 2000, the then Secretary of State for Health, the right hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn), made financial provision for a breast cancer screening programme that was implemented four years later in 2004, in effect, extending screening to women aged 65 to 70. I also remind the House of the words used by the Minister of State, Department of Health, the hon. Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton), in her foreword to the breast screening programme's 2005 annual review. She wrote:
	"It is important . . . that we continue to invest in research and new technologies."
	We must also recognise that the technology is changing. The traditional mammogram X-ray is slowing making way for the digital mammogram. That point is well made in the annual review of 2005, which states that new technology is easier to use, more reliable and quicker for all concerned. The view has also been put forward that it is better to concentrate on increasing take-up in the 50-to-70 age range. I am not against that—far from it—but there are also other vulnerable groups, and we should not exclude them.
	It is difficult to argue against the extension of routine screening for women between the ages of 70 and 75. Breast tissue is less dense, the cancer is easier to detect, women are living longer and more healthy lives, and the risk of breast cancer increases with age. For the 45-to-50 age range, I accept that it is more difficult to detect cancer. That does not mean that it cannot or should not be done, however. Early detection saves lives and substantially reduces the cost of lengthy treatment. As the lost economic output has been valued at £1.4 million per life, such a programme would clearly be cost-effective, and the cost of increased screening can be justified. Moreover, the latest technology allows for greater capacity.
	We are talking about saving lives—nothing more and nothing less. We must be ambitious. Yes, in this country, we do have one of the finest screening programmes in the world. Considering Britain's economic strength in the world, it would be surprising, and a shame, if we did not. The challenge, however, is to refrain from comforting ourselves that we have a successful programme, and instead to strive to make that programme even better.

Mark Simmonds: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Mr. Vara) on introducing his Bill, which, to his credit, he did with great articulation and passion. The Bill addresses a subject of great importance to many thousands of women.
	I am extremely aware of the prevalence of breast cancer. East Lincolnshire, the area of the country that I represent, has one of the highest incidences in the country—152.9 cases per 100,000 people, compared with a national average of 137.7 cases per 100,000. That is 200 new cases of the disease being diagnosed every year in the East Lincolnshire primary care trust area alone. I have met many of those involved in local support groups in my constituency who do excellent work supporting women during and after this traumatic illness. I want to place on record my thanks for their excellent work both in my constituency and elsewhere in the country.
	My colleagues and I are broadly sympathetic towards the aspirations of the Bill—to build on the success of the NHS breast screening programme introduced by a Conservative Government in 1988. Since that time, the programme has been instrumental in catching breast cancers early and saving lives. In 2003–04, approximately 1.5 million women were screened and more than 11,000 breast cancers were detected through screening—approximately a quarter of all breast cancers diagnosed each year.
	That success has contributed to a substantial fall in the number of UK women dying from breast cancer since the scheme was introduced. Between 1993 and 2002, deaths from the disease among women fell by 12 per cent. Sadly, however, the annual figure still stands at around 13,000. What is more, almost two thirds of women diagnosed with breast cancer are now likely to survive for at least 20 years, according to Cancer Research UK. Ten years ago, that figure was only 44 per cent. Clearly, extending the scope of the programme and improving take-up could improve health outcomes further.
	I must, however, express some reservations about my hon. Friend's proposals. The scheme currently operates for women aged between 50 and 69; it was recently extended from 64 on the basis of the issuing of an invitation to attend a screening once every three years. Above the age of 70, women are entitled to request a screening but invitations are not issued as a matter of routine. Conservative Members welcomed the increase from 64 to 69 in the upper range of the programme. In addition, we called for all national guidance on cancer, including appraisals of drugs such as Herceptin, to be fully implemented.
	The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence has recently issued guidance in respect of women with a family history of breast cancer, many of whom are at a significantly increased risk of developing the disease. NICE recommends that women in that category aged between 40 and 49 should be entitled to annual screening in view of their increased risk. Again, we support the extension of screening for women with a family history of this terrible disease.
	There are, however, good medical reasons for being wary of extending routine screening at the lower age range for all women. Clinically, the case is yet to be proven. As my hon. Friend has said, pre-menopausal breast tissue in younger women tends to be denser, making it more difficult to obtain an accurate and reliable mammogram. The value of routine breast screening for that category of women, without the high risk associated with family history of cancer, needs further research and analysis. Long-term studies are considering what benefit, if any, can be derived from inviting women for screening from the age of 40. My hon. Friend's proposals would benefit enormously from an encouraging report on that matter, which clearly warrants further examination in Committee.
	Meanwhile, our priority must be to see that NHS breast screening is rolled out across those ages already specified and to ensure that NICE guidance is fully implemented. According to Breakthrough Breast Cancer, in some parts of the country the scheme is failing to meet the minimum take-up standard of 70 per cent. In October 2004, the all-party parliamentary group on breast cancer produced an extremely valuable report highlighting inequalities in the uptake of NHS breast screening among women. The report found that one in six women did not attend their screening appointment because it was inconvenient for them to do so—a point highlighted by my hon. Friends the Members for Peterborough (Mr. Jackson) and for North-East Milton Keynes (Mr. Lancaster). More therefore needs to be done to promote awareness of breast cancer and to encourage an understanding of the importance of early detection. More could also be done to locate NHS breast screening facilities closer to women's places of work. That would increase the convenience of daytime appointments, which it is often difficult for women to get away from work to attend.
	There is also a challenge to improve take-up of screening in communities with little tradition of accepting invitations. The all-party group's report highlighted the fact that areas with a highly mobile population, such as Milton Keynes, or with a significant ethnic minority population are likely to be affected by low take-up. Women over the age of 70 are entitled to attend a screening once every three years. It might be advantageous to extend the age range further. However, improving the effectiveness of existing arrangements must be the health service's priority, so we should be extremely careful when imposing additional duties.
	Conservative Members hope that the Bill will be considered in Committee and look forward to seeing how the new requirements could be made easier or phased in. Meanwhile, we remain convinced of the importance and impact of cancer screening services. I commend the staff working to save lives by detecting cancer early and look forward to the day when cancers in addition to cervical and bowel cancer, which are both subject to screening schemes, can be detected in that way.
	Breast cancer is a killer. Nearly 13,000 women die from the disease each year. We should investigate all proposals to raise awareness, increase education, improve early detection and ultimately save lives. Therefore, notwithstanding the reservations that I have expressed about my hon. Friend's Bill, we believe that it warrants further scrutiny in Committee, and I therefore commend it to the House.

Rosie Winterton: I congratulate the hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Mr. Vara) on securing a Second Reading for his Bill. He set out very clearly the devastation that breast cancer causes to women, families, friends and society more widely. I agree that it is important that the House should discuss the issues and use such debates to raise awareness of the value of breast cancer screening programmes. Women should be aware of the need for self-examination but should also participate in those programmes.
	As hon. Members are aware, reducing deaths from cancer is one of the top three priorities of the Department of Health. As the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Mark Simmonds) both said, breast cancer is the most common form of cancer in England, and more than 36,000 new cases were diagnosed in 2003. However, major progress has been made in tackling the disease and, since 1997, breast cancer mortality in the under-75s has fallen by 13 per cent., which means that 43,000 lives have been saved. Nearly 80 per cent. of women survive the disease for at least five years. Breast cancer screening has made an important contribution to that progress. May I add my thanks to everyone in the NHS whose dedication and hard work have led to those improvements?
	The national computerised call and recall scheme for breast screening was introduced in 1988, and was the first such programme in the European Union. Women aged 50 to 70 are invited for free breast screening every three years. Breast screening by mammography is an X-ray examination of the breast, and can show breast cancers at a very early stage. Early detection is important, and that system in particular can show breast cancers when they are too small to see or feel. If changes are found at that early stage there is a good chance of a successful recovery.
	The NHS breast cancer screening programme is a great success, and it is regarded as one of the best breast screening programmes in the world. I am pleased to inform the House that in 2003–04, 1.3 million women were screened for breast cancer in England. Over 11,000 cancers were detected, 42 per cent. of which were small cancers that could not have been detected by hand. Of course, we wish to make further improvements to our breast screening programme, which I shall outline later. However, first I shall deal with the measures in the hon. Gentleman's Bill, particularly his wish to extend breast screening to women aged 45 to 50, and 70 to 75. He and I had an interesting and informative meeting about those issues in December, when we discussed many of the points that he has made today. I hope that he found that discussion helpful. Since that time I have had further meetings with Breakthrough Breast Cancer. As we discussed at the meeting, the Bill is an important way of raising awareness of the issues.
	I hope the hon. Gentleman will accept that a number of the reasons that I set out at that meeting, which were echoed by the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness from the Conservative Front Bench today, still stand. The Government's stance is supported by organisations such as Breakthrough Breast Cancer. I reiterate that that does not mean that there will not be improvements in future, but it is important that any changes are based on the available evidence supporting them, so that we can ensure that the existing programme for women between the ages of 50 and 70 is the most effective and of the highest quality before we extend it. I hope the hon. Gentleman will accept the need for an evidence base strong enough to support any extension.

Brooks Newmark: I am delighted to have secured this debate, which I hope will address the concerns of my constituents. The future of the A120 was raised in this House on several occasions by my predecessor, but there is still a pressing need to revisit the subject. Before I set out some of the issues, however, I pay tribute to my constituent, Roger Pulfrey, who chaired the Cressing A120 action group until his untimely death a fortnight ago. I regret that he cannot hear the outcome of this debate and will not witness the resolution of a campaign to which he was so dedicated.
	I have been grateful for the willingness of many local groups to make constructive contributions to the proposals affecting local transport, including the Cressing action group, the Blackwater Valley action group, the Hatfield Peverel traffic working party, the Braintree and Witham rail users association and the Kelvedon rail users association. In addition, I have met and spoken to hundreds of residents in Cressing, Tye Green, Coggeshall, Silver End, Kelevedon, Feering and Bradwell—I thank them all. I hope that by bringing this debate to the House I can introduce some of that constructive spirit and generate a consensus over the future of the project.
	The substance of the debate concerns a section of the A120 between Braintree and Marks Tey. In recent years, the A120 has been upgraded, section by section, to bring it up to the standards required of a road that links the M11 with the port of Harwich and forms part of the trans-European road network. Since 2004, the section of the A120 between Stansted and Braintree has been improved beyond recognition, and traffic has been diverted around Braintree on a bypass since 1989. However, problems resume along the section of A120 that runs from the end of the bypass at Braintree to the junction with the A12 at Marks Tey. Congestion and safety issues are associated with a road that is already operating beyond its designated capacity. Few, if any, of my constituents would dispute the need to make significant improvements to the section of the A120 between Braintree and Marks Tey. The current situation causes havoc for motorists in Braintree, and the advantages of the improved sections of the road are lost once they reach that bottleneck.
	I believe that only two objectives should be considered when evaluating the road scheme: how best to reduce traffic congestion in the area, and how best to safeguard the environment. That is particularly so in light of the technical appraisal report, which has identified a very low cost variance between any of the options considered so far.
	Turning first to traffic, the problems are immediately apparent. Congestion begins at a roundabout that was constructed as part of the Braintree bypass and has since been dubbed "cholesterol corner" because of the subsequent concentration of several fast food outlets there. The irony of that name is not lost on those of us who identify the end of the bypass with the resumption of clogging. In fact, the bypass continues past Galleys corner, but the roundabout is the major sticking point.
	The sheer number of cars using the A120 is only part of the problem. Indeed, the traffic model used to predict road usage is derived from the original Essex county council stage 1 report conducted in 2002 and does not take into account the new Stansted to Braintree section of the A120 opened in 2004. It is of greater concern that traffic coming from the area to the north of Braintree, using the A131, and from the east, using the A120, would have to negotiate three roundabouts in order to access the proposed road at a fourth junction which is to be constructed on open countryside near Tye Green. That seems to be transferring an existing problem instead of resolving it. It will not allow for a proper separation of local and through traffic, and it will make part of the Braintree bypass redundant.

Brooks Newmark: That is indeed the case. However, it is important not only to predict traffic flow but to consult local communities before such decisions are made.
	Braintree district council's official response to the consultation was emphatic in its opposition to the construction of a new grade-separated junction at Tye Green. I am pleased to note that a letter to residents from the Highways Agency admits that at least proposals for a fully grade-separated junction at Galleys corner are now under consideration. However, other issues affecting traffic flow remain unresolved, particularly the decision not to present the option of an intermediate junction at Coggeshall between Braintree and Marks Tey. That has left many residents believing that the balance of the scheme is tipped in favour of the strategic interests of through traffic over the relief of local traffic congestion.
	Residents are equally concerned about the impact of the scheme on the environment. The Highways Agency's proposal requires a land take of approximately 122 hectares, of which 108 hectares are grade 2 agricultural land. That is more than any other scheme under consideration. It will seriously undermine the economic efficiency of the area affected as well as leaving a large section of previously untouched rural land trapped between the old A120 and the new route. Ominously, for those affected, the environmental assessment report states that
	"at this stage it has not been considered appropriate to conduct detailed assessments of individual farm holdings."
	I ask the Minister at what stage such an assessment will take place.
	The real fear that residents have is that the construction of the road would weaken planning restrictions in the area, resulting in the comprehensive urbanisation of the protected Blackwater valley. Large-scale engineering works will, in all likelihood, impinge on previously untouched areas of the valley. The Blackwater valley action group has rightly said:
	"The effect of a major trunkroad spanning this valley would be devastating and irreversible."
	It seems clear that the landscape and its wildlife are at risk from this new intrusion. Only recently a survey by the Essex wildlife trust has identified a specific threat to both rare bumblebees and otters, as well as a variety of other endangered bird life along the proposed route. Braintree district council's formal response to the consultation identified several environmental threats posed by the new scheme. Furthermore, the proposed new junction at Tye Green will break up a corridor of land that has been preserved as the boundary that is intended to prevent the merger of the two communities of Braintree and Tye Green.
	For those who are not agitated by the impact that the proposal will have on bees and otters, there is another serious threat to contend with, and that is flooding. Villages in the area—especially Bradwell, where I live, and Coggleshall—were seriously flooded in 2001. The size of bridge spans that are needed to avoid the risk of flooding will increase to monstrous proportions, the true extent of which has not yet been adequately presented to the public or properly investigated. Many of my constituents seek reassurance that the lack of any overriding objections from DEFRA will not mean that the scheme, in whichever form it takes when it escapes from the drawing board, will have carte blanche with regard to the rural environment.
	DEFRA's involvement in the process should not be regarded as an all-or-nothing affair, as many local residents believe it to be. I would like to have the Minister's assurance that the strategic interests at play will continue to be balanced with the environmental concerns of other Government agencies.
	I turn to matters of consultation and presentation before I conclude. There is undoubtedly a need for this section of the A120 to be improved, and I am prepared to concede that the Highways Agency does not have any nefarious intentions towards my constituents. However, the fact remains that the way that the consultation process was handled in this instance has caused some difficulties which might have been avoidable, and I hope that it will be possible to learn some lessons for the future. Many residents have been under the impression, throughout the period of public consultation, that the agency was putting the cart before the horse and had already decided on a course of action. Better initial presentation might have prevented much of the distress that local people have subsequently experienced.
	I recognise that the Highways Agency has tried hard to address the confusion by explaining that the proposed southern route was just that—a proposal and nothing more. However, the fine distinction between a proposal by the agency and the Secretary of State's "preferred route announcement" is lost on me as it is on the general public. Queries from residents were answered in correspondence, but only in a piecemeal fashion and after considerable delay in some instances. One resident waited from 9 May to 20 September 2005 to receive an answer to her queries about the consultation process, by which time the deadline had expired. The prevailing perception was that the consultation process was, in the words of one residents' action group,
	"no different to having only one candidate to vote for or against in an election".
	Members of Parliament might wish for such elections but they hardly create the right impression.
	The perception was encouraged by problems with the consultation leaflet. The map key referred to "The Proposal" and "Options Considered", implying that the leaflet was a report of an investigation that was already done and dusted. The visual aids were no less forthright. As the Minister can see as I hold up the map, a bold black line represented the proposed scheme while the other viable options appeared as merely hazy suggestions. Those brave enough to wade into the 192-page technical appraisal report, let alone the 508-page environmental assessment report, would have found a welcome surprise in the following admission:
	"The deciding factor in the choice of junction at the A12 could be the collective views of local people. Furthermore, it is proposed that in the interests of clarity of presentation and to receive objective and focused feedback from local people, a single route should be put forward at Public Consultation".
	In other words, it was recognised that the public might decide the outcome and that it would therefore be expedient to lead them in a safe direction in case they should want to make up their own minds. It was not so much a case of, "Follow the yellow brick road" as, "Follow the bold black line." That is a shame because the technical appraisal report acknowledged that no existing proposals should limit the development of new options. However, the one document to which residents had ready access—the consultation leaflet—was not as clear on that point as it might have been.
	Even the distribution of the document left much to be desired. Last June, the Cressing action group presented the Highways Agency with the results of a questionnaire, which sought to establish whether residents had been given adequate notice of the consultation process. Eighty-one per cent. of respondents said that they had received a direct mailing about the consultation from the Highways Agency.
	Those perceived shortcomings were compounded by the failure to hold exhibitions in either Cressing or Tye Green, although those communities were most closely affected by the proposed scheme. Those may appear to be small oversights but they have helped to create the impression among local residents that any consideration had already been completed before the consultation had even begun, and that they were not genuinely intended to make a meaningful contribution.
	Even when lengthy and well informed submissions were made, such as the one that the Cressing action group produced—I have brought it with me and I hope that the Minister will take the time to review it thoroughly—timely responses have not been forthcoming from the Highways Agency.
	We still await the formal consultation reports, which are not due to be ready until the summer. In the interim, residents have been left hanging. Will the Minister look into the way in which the consultation was conducted? I am sure that the delay in publishing the consultation outcome is indicative of the Highways Agency's desire to find the best possible solution to the area's transport needs. Attempts have been made to reassure individual residents that the concerns that they expressed in the consultation will be considered and acted upon.
	I understand that several new options are under investigation as a result of responses to the consultation. I hope that the debate will provide more widespread comfort and that the Minister will add the weight of his reassurances in his reply. The people of Braintree, the county and the region need an improvement to the A120 between Braintree and Marks Tey. However, local people are entitled to be reassured that their views will be taken into account, that due consideration will be given to the environmental impact of all the proposed options and that there will be nothing clandestine about the important decision.

Stephen Ladyman: I am happy to give the hon. Gentleman those two assurances. Indeed, the Highways Agency has proposed the southern route as the option for discussion precisely because—in its view and that of the analysis that we have already done—it involves the least environmental impact on the River Blackwater special landscape area, which he referred to. I am happy to give him an absolute assurance that the representations made in the consultation will be thoroughly looked at and objectively considered before we finally come up with a route.As I have already acknowledged, the public consultation document did not satisfactorily set out the fact that the alternatives were there to be considered or that new ideas could be put forward. I will ensure that that lesson is relearned.
	The hon. Gentleman also made some wider criticisms of the public consultation. I can tell him that about 26,000 copies of the public consultation document were distributed locally. The Highways Agency held exhibitions in four venues in early and mid-February, as well as a fifth at Feering, at the invitation of the parish council, towards the end of February. It also attended meetings arranged by other groups and councils, including Cressing, during the consultation period.
	There was some confusion over the distribution of the consultation document. The Highways Agency received assurances from the organisation that was due to deliver it, but, despite those assurances, copies were not delivered as widely, thoroughly or early as the agency required. To deal with that, it made more copies of the document available at the consultation meetings and held such meetings not only at the venues that I have described, but at the request of a number of parish councils and other groups: Bradwell parish council, on two separate occasions in April and May; also in May, Sisted parish council Blackwater Valley action group, Braintree district council, Feering parish council and Cressing parish council; and in June, with the Braintree business forum. All had consultation meetings specially organised for them, to take account of their views. The visitors' books at the five main exhibitions recorded some 2,259 signatures, and 1,590 written responses were received from individuals, elected bodies and other groups such as the Blackwater and Cressing action groups.
	As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, the Government announced in December 2004, through their recent spending review, that routes on the strategic road network would now fall into two categories: those of national importance, such as the M1 and the M25, and those of predominantly regional importance. The A120 has been classified as being of regional importance. That means that while decisions on all schemes and the commitment for funding remain with the Secretary of State, advice from the regions on the priority of schemes on trunk roads of regional significance will be sought alongside other regional transport proposals. We are waiting for the regional assembly's advice on how it wants to prioritise this scheme against others in the area.
	Essentially, two pieces of work need to be taken into account—the results of the public consultation that we have been discussing and the regional prioritisation—before we will know exactly when the scheme will go ahead. Clearly, if the prioritisation is sufficiently high, the scheme will go ahead earlier than if it is given a lower priority. Notionally, at least, the scheme could be open in 2013. I know that that would bring significant economic advantages to the local community. Before we can get to that point and put the scheme into the targeted programme of improvements, we have to come up with a preferred route. We have seriously to consider the environmental impact of the route and to make sure that the scheme is economically robust. I repeat my assurance that we will do that.
	I am keen to see considerable engagement with the local community, with the hon. Gentleman and with other elected Members who have an interest in the route. I am happy to meet the hon. Gentleman any time he feels the need in the next year or so, as we move forward on the scheme. I very much hope that we can come up with a route that will meet the needs of all his constituents and, at least, reassure them that appropriate weight has been given to their concerns. Last, but not least, I will be talking to the Highways Agency about the lessons to be learned from the consultation to ensure that it is done better in the future.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at one minute past Three o'clock.